Many genetic studies and results are overestimated in the moment. Even in rainbowfish the results are not
convincing (that's my personal view I'll explain).
The interpretation of genetic data mainly depends on the formulas you use. We had a study here on the
university of Düsseldorf where results of genetic examinations where reckoned with several methods used
in genetics. Astonishingly enough, the results differed strongly depending from the method which was
used. The result was: if you want a certain result, just take the useful formula. If you read genetic
publications you often find methods as to be unuseful and the method used as the only useful one. Let's say
it this way: If you want a certain result just take the correct reckon method and you will get it. Is that
science?
To my opinion genetic examinations are useless at the stand of genetic sciences we have in the moment on
the specific level. The relation of species can't be determined only on a genetic base according to the
difficulties I mentioned above. As far as I remember some of the genetic results of the last genetic study in
rainbowfish were astonishing (relatives of M. splendida australis). I bet if you take the results or some
other/more gen loci or bands and another formula for interpretation you will have different results - which
maybe are more astonishing.
That seems to be too much criticism for a seemingly generally accepted method. However, remember that
new methods seem to be accepted quite well at the first time when they seem to be the "rosetta stone"of
science (here especially species determination and/or relationships among species and varieties), and only
after the first enthusiasm has cooled down we can think about how we can use the new method correctly.
Harro
harro.hieronimus at t-online.de